ARF’s execution of a UAE decree stays on track: the Bombay High Court has refused to reopen the stamp-duty objection to HSBC’s debt-assignment agreement, holding that it was conclusively decided earlier and that ARF, which acquired the debt and associated recovery rights, can pursue execution in India.
Mumbai: Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia and another judgment debtor asked the Bombay High Court to throw out the execution proceedings brought by ARF SV 1 Sarl and to impound the agreement through which HSBC Bank Middle East Limited assigned its rights. The Court has rejected that application.
Justice Abhay Ahuja passed the order on November 3, 2026; the 41-page document was uploaded on November 6. It disposes of Interim Application No. 556 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 182 of 2025, and it rejects the challenge to execution rather than recording that recovery has been completed.
Why the earlier decision remained binding
In paragraphs 35–44, the Court held that the objections had been conclusively resolved by the April 2024 order. That order had neither been modified nor set aside. The subsequent commercial appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and the Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of the special leave petition with liberty to raise points at an appropriate stage.
Justice Ahuja nevertheless held that the earlier determination continued to bind the parties. Relying on Barkat Ali v. Badrinarain, he explained that res judicata can apply between successive stages of the same execution proceedings. A party cannot return to an issue already decided merely because execution has moved to a later stage.
Authorities concerning prima facie interim findings in civil suits and conditional stays of arbitral awards were distinguished. Those situations, the Court found, did not displace the finality of the execution-stage objections decided here.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Rejects Ramsay Heirs’ Challenge To Execution Of IMPDA Arbitral Award
The assignment behind the dispute
While proceedings in the UAE were still continuing, HSBC assigned its debt and related rights to ARF under a sale and purchase agreement dated September 9, 2021. The UAE litigation ended in a final judgment dated November 29, 2022 in HSBC’s favour, and ARF then sought execution in India as the bank’s assignee.
The judgment debtors argued that ARF was not named as decree holder and could not rely on the assignment without paying Maharashtra stamp duty. They asked for the agreement to be impounded and brought stamp authorities into the application to secure adjudication of the duty allegedly payable.
They also contended that an earlier order of April 1, 2024 was only an interim determination and could not prevent reconsideration. ARF opposed the application, arguing that the same objections had already been decided and that res judicata and issue estoppel barred another round.
The Maharashtra stamp-duty objection
The objection failed on its merits as well. In paragraph 52, the Court found that the assignment was executed in the UAE and did not relate to property, or a thing done or to be done, within Maharashtra or India. On those facts, the Maharashtra Stamp Act did not apply to the agreement.
Execution of the decree, the Court further held, could not itself be treated as a thing to be done under an instrument chargeable with duty. This reasoning concerns the particular overseas assignment and its connection with Maharashtra; the order does not exempt every document executed abroad from Indian stamp law.
ARF could pursue the decree as assignee
Paragraphs 54–64 examine the rights transferred to ARF. The agreement covered the debt, guarantees and recovery rights, including benefits arising from the pending proceedings, and assigning them before the final decree did not deprive ARF of the right to enforce the resulting decree.
Considering Order XXI Rule 16 and Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that ARF could pursue execution as a person claiming through HSBC. It also made clear that ARF could recover no more than HSBC was entitled to under the judgment and decree.
The operative direction in paragraph 65 dismisses the interim application. The ruling therefore leaves ARF’s execution proceedings standing and rejects the attempt to reopen the resolved objections.
Case: Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia & Anr., applicants in ARF SV 1 Sarl v. Suresh Tulsidas Bhatia & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application No. 556 of 2026 in Commercial Execution Application No. 182 of 2025
Court: Bombay High Court, Commercial Division, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice Abhay Ahuja
Order Date: November 3, 2026
Uploaded: November 6, 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:24233
Outcome: Application seeking rejection of execution proceedings and impounding of the assignment agreement dismissed.
